The Italian shipper Gondrand concluded a contract of carriage documented by a bill of lading with the Italian carrier Società Fratelli D'Amico (D'Amico) on behalf of the British company Whittingham & Sons Ltd (Whittingham). The consignee was the National Bank of Egypt. The cargo was loaded onto the Maria Carla, flying the Italian flag, in Italy destined for Alexandria, Egypt. Whittingham brought a claim against D'Amico for compensation for the partial loss of the cargo.

Whittingham argued that the one-year time bar provided by art 3.6 of the Hague Rules applied to the case. The Court of Appeal of Genoa considered that the contract of carriage had been concluded between two Italian parties (Gondrand and D'Amico). Therefore, the claim was not justified as the six-month limitation period provided by the Italian Code of Navigation had already expired.

Whittingham appealed in cassation, arguing that the Court of Appeal had not correctly applied art 3.6 of the Hague Rules. The notion of international transport needs to be read not objectively (ie the voyage occurred between ports in different States) but subjectively, meaning the presence in the agreement of parties from different contracting States.

Whittingham also submitted that the clause limiting the time bar was null and void under art 3.8 of the Hague Rules.

Held: The appeal in cassation is upheld.

The Supreme Court of Cassation argued that the one-year time-bar was to be applied.

The Court highlighted art 3.8 of the Hague Rules, establishing that any clause in a contract of carriage relieving the carrier from liability for loss or damage or lessening such liability otherwise than as provided in the Hague Rules, shall be null and void and of no effect. The clause reducing the time bar to bring a claim concerning the carrier's liability was not lawful.

The Court noted that the Hague Rules govern international transport. The notion of international transport includes elements of interest for different contracting States. Moreover, the Hague Rules try to achieve uniformity, avoiding conflicts of national laws of the parties to the contract. The Court also emphasised the fact that Italy decided to commit itself to fulfil these needs, giving implementation to the Hague Rules in domestic law. The Rules co-exist in the Italian legal system with the Code of Navigation, which does not repeal the Hague Rules.

Concerning art 10 of the Hague Rules, the Court agreed with Whittingham that the notion of international transport is to be understood subjectively. The nationality of the consignee is relevant, as well as that of the carrier and the shipper.

In conclusion, the Court recalled the definition of contract of carriage provided in art 1.b of the Hague Rules to argue that foreign citizens from contracting States of the Hague Rules are entitled to sue Italian carriers before Italian courts to protect their interests.